Measuring PM Emissions from Aircraft Auxiliary Power Units, Tires, and Brakes (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

41 This appendix discusses the process the project team went though to determine a preferred airport for conducting the APU, tire, and brake measurement campaign. Several factors, such as size and fleet mix, meteorology, prior experience of team members working with specific airports, and accessibil- ity, were considered and used to down-select Chicago O’Hare International Airport as the preferred airport, which was pre- sented to the ACRP Project 02-17 panel for its approval as part of Task 4: Interim Report. B.1 Candidate Airports There were several factors that were important for select- ing an airport at which the team would conduct its emissions sampling and measurements. These factors included having (1) a fleet mix that would allow access to a variety of aircraft and consequently a variety of APUs, tires, and brakes; (2) an average ambient temperature range during the year to allow for testing in both low and high temperatures; (3) airport manage- ment supportive of the project and willing to allow the team to travel to several parts of the airport operating area to access equipment and emissions sources; and (4) an airport layout that would enable ready access to APU exhaust streams and, more important, an area sufficiently near an active runway to sample tire emission plumes near the touchdown portion of the runway and brake emission plumes near the deceleration portion of the runway. The project team began with a list of eight airports to screen against these criteria. Table B.1 summarizes some of the considerations that went into making the initial list. Each airport was then screened further as described in the follow- ing subsections to arrive at a preferred airport. B.1.1 Fleet Mix The national fleet mix described in Appendix A, Section A.1.4, was used to evaluate the fleet mix at the candidate air- ports. Based on a review of this data, the project team deter- mined that all of the large hub airports had sufficient mix of aircraft to provide ready access to the most prevalent APU models and a wide mix of aircraft tires and brakes. Oakland airport was screened out of the candidate airport list because it did not have a sufficiently broad fleet mix to satisfy the needs of this project. B.1.2 Meteorology Because of an interest in obtaining information on the effect of ambient conditions on the PM emissions, the measure- ment campaign was planned to encompass seasonal variation of ambient temperatures by choosing a cold weather winter measurement opportunity, as well as a warm weather deploy- ment. The primary concern was to have testing opportuni- ties spanning a wide range of ambient temperatures. This was most constraining in choosing the cold weather measurement opportunity, limiting airports to northerly situated airfields that have a wide range of airplane type usage on a regular basis. Large city airports in Northeast and northern Midwest locations were the prime candidates for the cold temperature measurements. The same airport would also serve well for a summer location for a warm temperature measurement loca- tion, but other options could be considered if required. Table B.2 presents a summary of annual ambient tempera- ture for the cities in which the candidate airports are located. The difference in average mean temperature between July and February illustrates the prospective temperature range for the proposed data collection. On the basis of the average annual ambient winter/ summer temperature range, Atlanta, Houston, and Oakland were screened out of the preferred airport list. B.1.3 Previous Experience The project team has participated in a number of NASA, FAA, DOD, and ACRP-sponsored field-testing programs and has measured engines in a variety of engine test cells and A P P E N D I X B Airport Selection Process

42 airport venues. Such testing has included both sampling from stationary airplanes and from plumes advected from runways during routine operation, on a non-interference basis. The measurements to be carried out under ACRP Project 02-17 involved measurements both on stationary airplanes (APU emissions measurements) and on emissions advected from landing runways (tires and brakes). Returning to an airport where one or more of the project team members had a relationship could expedite the planning and staging of the pilot test. Negotiating a testing program depends heavily on the team’s reputation and experience and on its working relationships with the airports and airlines com- munities. In prior projects, the project team had successfully negotiated agreements to measure aircraft-related emissions on specific aircraft and airport facilities in Atlanta Hartsfield, Bos- ton Logan, Chicago O’Hare, Cleveland Hopkins, Oakland Inter- national, Dallas Love Field, Chicago Midway and New York JFK. The airlines the team had worked with include Delta, Continen- tal, Southwest, United, Continental Express and Federal Express. As a result of those prior successful negotiations, Boston Logan and Chicago O’Hare were the team’s top priorities. B.1.4 Accessibility The project team coordinated with the selected airline/ airport combination to gain the needed access for both the APU measurements and the tire and brake advected emissions measurements. For the APU measurements, the cooperating airline would be asked to operate the APU for a period on the order of 1 hour at varying operating loads, with the mobile diagnostic unit situated at the APU exhaust location. Setting up the sampling probe and preparing to take the measurement should be accomplished in signifi- cantly less than 1 hour, followed by a testing period of up to 1 hour. The team anticipated that 5 to 6 APUs could be measured during one night’s access to the required number of aircraft. For the brake and tire emissions measurements, the project team required access to locations on the downwind side of a landing runway, as close to the runway as safe and practical from an airport operational perspective. Two separate loca- tions would be needed: one close to where touchdown typically occurs and one in the area where brakes are typically applied, further along the runway from touchdown. Ideally, the mobile lab could be driven from one location to the other under air- port traffic control without crossing active traffic routes. A sampling line could be used to extend a probe closer to the runway from the mobile lab if the mobile lab was constrained to be further from the runway than was considered optimal. An example of a runway that might afford sufficient access with- out conflicting with other runways or taxiways was the new North Runway at Chicago O’Hare. Airport Significant Considerations Atlanta Hartsfield Large commercial service hub airport; prior team member experience working with airport; prior team member experience working with primary carrier. Boston Logan Large commercial service hub airport; readily accessible to one team member; prior team member experience working with a primary carrier; reasonably large summer/winter temperature difference. Chicago O’Hare Large commercial service hub airport; prior team member experience working with airport; prior team member experience working with primary carrier; reasonably large summer/winter temperature difference. Detroit Large commercial service hub airport; reasonably large summer/winter temperature difference. Houston Bush Large commercial service hub airport; prior team member experience working with airport. Minneapolis Large commercial service hub airport; large summer/winter temperature difference. Oakland Medium size commercial service hub airport; prior team member experience working with airport; prior team member experience working with primary carrier. Philadelphia Large commercial service hub airport; prior team member experience working with airport; reasonably large summer/winter temperature difference. Table B.1. Candidate airports.

43 Range Atlanta Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Nov Dec Nov Dec Nov Dec Nov Dec Nov Dec Nov Dec Nov Dec July-Feb Avg. High 50 55 64 72 78 85 88 87 81 72 64 54 Avg. Low 31 34 42 50 58 66 68 68 64 51 42 35 Mean 41 45 54 62 68 76 78 78 74 62 54 45 33 Boston Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Avg. High 35 37 45 55 66 76 81 78 72 62 52 40 Avg. Low 21 24 31 40 48 58 65 64 56 46 38 26 Mean 28 30 38 48 58 68 74 72 65 55 45 34 44 Chicago Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Avg. High 31 35 46 58 70 80 84 82 76 65 50 36 Avg. Low 17 22 31 41 51 60 66 65 58 47 36 24 Mean 25 28 38 50 61 71 75 74 68 56 44 30 47 Detroit Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Avg. High 30 34 44 57 68 78 84 81 74 61 48 35 Avg. Low 18 20 28 38 50 58 65 64 56 45 35 24 Mean 25 27 37 48 60 68 74 72 65 54 42 30 47 Houston Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Avg. High 61 65 72 78 84 88 92 92 88 81 72 64 Avg. Low 42 45 52 60 67 72 74 74 71 61 52 45 Mean 52 55 64 70 76 81 84 84 80 71 64 55 29 Minneapolis Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Avg. High 20 26 38 56 68 78 84 80 70 58 41 25 Avg. Low 2 8 22 36 47 57 64 60 50 38 25 10 Mean 12 18 31 46 58 68 74 71 61 48 34 18 56 Oakland Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Avg. High 57 60 62 66 68 72 74 75 76 72 64 57 Avg. Low 40 42 44 44 47 51 52 54 54 50 45 40 Mean 48 52 54 55 58 62 64 65 65 62 55 48 12 Philadelphia Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Avg. High 37 41 51 62 74 81 86 84 77 66 55 44 Avg. Low 22 24 34 42 52 61 67 66 58 46 37 28 Mean 30 34 42 52 64 72 77 76 68 56 46 36 43 Table B.2. Airport annual ambient temperature. B.2 Airport Short List Based on the factors previously described, the project team selected Chicago O’Hare as the preferred airport and United Airlines as the preferred airline to work with on this project. When the team met with the ACRP Project 02-17 panel to discuss the project interim report, Chicago O’Hare was pro- posed and accepted by the panel. If for some reason, Chicago O’Hare had not worked out as a suitable location for this campaign, the project team would have approached Boston Logan Airport and Delta Airlines to host this project.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation